ML20087H609

Part 21 Rept Re Nonconformance of Metal Hose Assemblies for Asme,Section Iii,Class 2 & 3 Svc.Status of Nonconforming Items Shipped Encl.All Customers Notified

ML20087H609
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone, Davis Besse, Seabrook, 05000000
Issue date:	12/16/1983
From:	Lalikos J TITEFLEX CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
REF-PT21-83-141-000 84-141, PT21-83-141, PT21-83-141-000, NUDOCS 8403210095
Download: ML20087H609 (4)

Text

.1

. . .

y y-ooo

tiheMex^

TITEFLEX CORPORATION December 16, 1983 A BUNDY COMPANY Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement U.S. Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission Wr hington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Non-Conformance of Metal Hose Assemblics for ASME, Sec. III, Class 2 and 3 Service C:ntlemen:

On January ll,1932, af ter due process, The Titeflex Corporation received Certificate of Authorization No. N-2572 which authorized us to use the NPT stamp for Class 2 and 3 piping subassemblics in accord with the provisions of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code of ASME.

Since receiving this stamp, Titeflex has fabricated, stamped and delivered flexible metal ho:e assemblies per ASME Sec. III and related Code Case N-192 to Stone & Webster at Mill-ctone 3, United Engineers at Seabrook Unit 1 and Toledo Edison at Davis-Besse Station.

During the presentation of one lot of Class 3 Code hardware for United Engineers, Seabrook Unit 1, the U.E. source inspector raised several questions, including our conformance to th:2 Code in the following areas: 1) There was excess weld reinforcement at the elbow welds for the metal hose assemblics, and 2) X-rays did not show location markers as recuired by Code.

Titeflex immediately initiated proper action for the removal of the excess reinforcement and rade a general review of all films related to the U.E. hardware, including hardware previously chipped to Seabrook Unit 1.

Af ter review of the films, Titeflex Level 3 x-ray technician was able to demonstrate that other physical characteristics of the assembly were visible on the x-rays and could be used as markers for the x-ray film. Both U.E. and their customer and our ANI were apprised of the situation, and there was agreement that alternate marking techniques could be used. All

- material previcusly shipped to Seabrook was returned to Titeflex to verify that alternate msrkers for weld identification did, in fact, provide the assurance required by the Code.

During this investigation, it was established that x-ray for these weld joints was not a r:quirement because all assemblics involved were Class 3. "LP" examination was all that was nieded. Erther review of the inspection requirements for the flexible hose innercore attach-ment weld raised a question concerning the acceptebility of x-ray in lieu of LP examination.

This was of major concern because the innercore attachment veld was buried in the assembly rnd not accessible for LP examination.

REXNIENIERP 8403210095 831216 maulus PDR ADOCK 0500G346 PDR S

bM ,

4 603 HendeeStreetiPost Office Box 54/ Springfield. Massachusetts 01109 U.S A/ Telephone Area C0de (413) 739 5631/TWX 710-350-1182/ TELEX 95-5434

i e, , . .

~2-Ut S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 16, 1983 On this issue, the ANI ruled that the latest issue of the related Code Case N-192-2 does cllow x-ray; but the customer (U.E.) was not sure, at.d Titeflex was forced to begin con-cideration for s request for Code interpretation. As a result of these discussloris and c:nsiderations, the innercore attachment weld design was scrutinized very closely and out of that review an additional question was raised, "Does the weld joint design conform to the requirements of the. Code?"

Af ter this latter question was raised, Titeflex made a full review of the performance of the joint design. Based on its having met or exceeded all specification requirements by actual test. Titeflex stated that safety was not an issue, and we notified our customers that all items previously shipped were now involved in a question of interpretatica for the innercore weld joint design and the related NDE testing.

Titeflex made a request of ASME for interpretation through our consultants. Taledyne Engineering Services of Waltham, Ha. Our consultants have now advised us that initial r:Eponse to the request indicates that a code modification will be required. In light of the time delay to execute such a change and that the code modification implies that present hardware is not in conformance, we have instituted a program to bring all designs into con-fcrmance with the Code and to properly rework or replace all items shipped or in process.

All customers were notified accordingly, and we are_taking this onnortunity_to_ apprise you e f__the_sicu_ation. we are attaching for your information a full list of particulars con-c:rning all of the hardware that was shipped.

On. November 15, Mr. Delmer Norman of NRC, Region IV, made a call and performed an audit at Titeflex. At that time, Mr. Norman was apprised of all particulars given above except for tha results for request of Code interpretation which occurred since his visit.

Tha above summary is to the best of my knowledge a true picture of the activities related to

, this subject. Please call me if you have any questions.

Yours truly.

TITEFLEX CORPORATION A Bundy Company

?

p o Vice President ctt. Engineering & Quality Control 1

-cca Messrs. F. Dibble, Jr. (Bulkley, Richardson & Gelinas)

D. Heador, Titeflex J. Staggers, Titeflex K. Hoben, Titeflex T. Haight Titeflex

/hp

STATUS OF NON-CONFORMING ITEMS SHIPPED i A. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., P.C. No.2472.800-653 for Millstone Nuclear Station, I i

Unit No. 3 - I

_Part Number Shipped Quantity

• Status TF P/N 109042-1 235 231 in Stores Mark #3HFM300-S22-9 14 piaaaa installed **

TF P/N-109042-3 198 185 in Stores Mark #3HFM150-S22-9 13 pcs installed **

' TF P/N 109042-4. 8 All in Stores Mark-#3HFM150-S52-9 TF P/N 109042-5 Mark #3HFM015-M22-10 17 Returned to Titeflex

• All items to be used in Code areas will be returned and brought into conformance.

• • These may or may not be in Code areas. '

B. - United Engineers & Constructors, Seabrook Unit 1- P.O. No. 9763.006-248 109024-1 1 1-DG-EP-22B All 1

109024-2 ' parts 1-DC-EP-23B 109024-7 1- returned 1-DG-EP-22A to .

109024-8 1 1-DG-EP-23A Titeflex

-109024-IS 1 All.above -

109024-5 1 1-DG-EP-26B 109024-11 1 1-DG-EP-26A I

109024-SS ' 1 All Above 109024-6 i 1-DG-EP-27B:

109024-12 1 1-DG-EP-27A 109024-6S- 1 All-Above 109024-3 , 1 1-DG-EP-24B .

J -

~

. ._ . . m . _ _ _. __. _ _ . . ._ . _ _

O ,

- . :,r.. 4.

• _ ,p ,

js g . 6j k6 ,

, . . <o*

c, 4

STATUS OF NON-CONFORMING ITEMS SHIPPED (cont'd.)

1

-B. . United Engineers & Constructors. Seabrook Unit 1 (cont'd.)

Part Number Shipped' Quantity

• Status i

.109024-4 'l All 1-DG-EP-258 parts i- - '109024-9 1 retu med 1-DP-EP-24A-

-:109024-10 1 l-DG-EP-25A Titeflex' 109024-3S 1 All Above -

109023-23 1 CC-MM-243 109023-33 1

. CC-)M-244 109023 -1 CC-MM-254'

'109023-51'- 1 CC-MM-273-

- 109023-52. 1

'CC-MM-274' 109023-63 1 CC-MM-263 i 109023-64 1- -

1  :

CC-MM-264'

.109023-23S 1.

All above

• All. items were returned to Titeflex and are being brought into conformance with the Code.

C.  :-Toledo Edison'Co., P.O. No. 102-A-72696A-G1,-Davis-Besse Station.

_ _109363-1 1- In Stores

/ c109363-2 1

• In Stores

• Customer advises these were not' installed. Customer has been advised we

will send replace

nents.

I I' .;

~

. \_

- . - - _ .- - - - - ..